1. Taipei Medical University. Proving that no matter what the brands of balanced nutritional formulas is, it can maintain or improve the tube-fed patient’s nutritional condition. I ntroduction As the number of patients who receive enteral tube feeding is increasing. More and more commercial formula products are available in market.. S ubjects and Methods R results and Discussion Fong KC, Wu PY, Yang SH School of Nutrition and Health Sciences, Taipei Medical University To evaluate that difference between the brands of balanced nutritional formulas for enteral feeding could maintain or improve the patient’s nutritional status. Subject who have been completely tube-fed for a consecutive of 3 months and must be > 20 year were recruited from 6 nursing home. We conducted those study by time series study design during 3 months period. Observation period (month 0), no change to their original tube feeding formula. Investigators (or the patients’ guardian) will record the patients’ amount of intake, condition of digestion and the condition of stool. Table 1 is a list of three major nutrients of 100g of tube feeding formula. There were total 138 subjects (55 men and 83 women). The total average of age is 78.5 ± 11.9 years, height is 154.5 ± 8.4cm, weight is 47.9 ± 8.4kg, BMI is 20.1 ± 3.6; Table 2 is the characteristic. Formula 1: Cr, GPT; formula 2: alb, bun, Cr, GPT, GNRI; formula 3: BW, BMI, BUN, HGB; formula 4: BUN, GOT; formula 5: alb, GPT, HGB, GNRI; formula 7: HGB increase significantly. Formula 5: BUN, Cr decrease significantly (Table 3). There are no significant difference existed among those balanced nutritional formulas and those formula could maintain or improve the patient’s nutritional condition. P urpose Intervention period (month 1), our trial tube feeding formula are assigned to our subjects. The blood sample is examined by Laboratory of TMUH (Taipei Medical University Hospital). We performed paired t-test and one-way ANOVA by using SAS for Windows 9.01 statistic software. Moreover, we use Scheffe for post- hoc analysis. When p < 0.05 means significant difference in statistic. Table 1 ： Three major nutrients of 100g of tube feeding formula 1 Calories (kcal)Carbohydrate (g)Protein (g)Fat (g) formula 144759.0(52.8%)18.0(16.1%)17.0(34.2%) formula 2464.863.0(54.2%)16.7(14.3%)16.3(31.6%) formula 344458.(52.3%)16.7(15.0%)16.2(32.8%) formula 445558.9(51.8%)18.0(15.8%)17.0(33.6%) formula 541662.6(60.2%)16.4(15.8%)14.1(30.5%) formula 646358.0(50.1%)18.5(16.0%)17.4(33.8%) formula 744853.5(47.8%)17.4(15.5%)15.8(31.7%) 1 values are expressed as number (%) Table 2 ： The charteristics of subjects 1,2 nage(yrs) BH(cm)BW(kg)BMI(kg/m 2) formula 11680.8 ± 11.0154.1 ± 6.553.4 ± 10.322.6 ± 5.0 formula 22280.5 ± 11.2157.2 ± 11.747.5 ± 9.119.2 ± 2.9 formula 32082.7 ± 9.4153.2 ± 8.743.2 ± 6.818.5 ± 3.0 formula 42380.5 ± 9.1156.7 ± 8.543.1 ± 10.617.5 ± 3.5 formula 51573.7 ± 12.9149.1 ± 7.847.1 ± 7.121.4 ± 3.9 formula 62173.5 ± 16.4158.5 ± 8.353.7 ± 8.521.4 ± 3.2 formula 72177.7 ± 13.6153.0 ± 7.747.0 ± 6.720.2 ± 3.5 total13878.5 ± 11.9154.5 ± 8.447.9 ± 8.420.1 ± 3.6 1 values are expressed as mean ± SD; 2 BW, Body weight; BH, Body height; BMI, Body mass index, BW (kg) / BH (m 2 ) Table 3 ： Receiving different formulas for tube feeding: before-after difference in weight, BMI, blood biochemical index 1,2 BW BMI AlbBUNCrGOTGPTHGBHCTGNRI formula 10.7±2.30.3±1.00.1±0.40.9±4.9-0.1±0.1*1.4±10.95.6±8.9*-0.3±1.3-0.8±3.41.8±4.1 formula 20.4±3.00.2±1.30.5±0.4*6.1±4.6*0.1±0.1*18.9±73.812.1±26.5*0.2±1.00.1±3.07.1±6.1* formula 31.8±1.6*0.8±0.6*0.1±0.56.1±7.0*0.0±0.14.1±7.7*2.8±8.10.5±0.9*1.2±2.63.1±7.1 formula 40.2±0.90.1±0.40.1±0.48.6±7.0*0.0±0.14.0±8.0*3.1±7.6-0.4±1.2-1.4±3.60.9±6.0 formula 5-0.4±2.5-0.2±1.10.4±0.3*-1.7±2.0*-0.1±0.1*4.5±9.09.7±10.8*0.5±0.7*0.8±1.96.0±5.6* formula 60.3±2.10.1±0.8-0.1±0.3-0.2±3.20.0±0.1-2.3±6.3-3.3±9.10.1±1.30.5±3.5-1.4±4.4 formula 70.4±2.10.1±0.90.0±0.3-1.9±7.60.1± 2.2±21.2-1.2±13.10.4±0.9*0.1±2.50.7±4.1 1 values are expressed as mean ± SD 2 BW, body weight: BMI, body mass index, body weight (kg) / body height (m 2 );Alb, albumin; BUN, blood urea nitrogen; Cr, creatinine; GOT, glutamate oxaloacetate transaminase; GPT,glutamic pyruvic transaminase; HGB, hemoglobin; HCT, hematocrit; GNRI, geriatric nutritional risk index, [1.489*albumin (g/L)]+[ 41.7*(body weight/idea body weight)]